Is Rapid Fat Loss Right For You?

As we enter the new year, coming out of nearly three straight months of too much food and too little training, it’s nearly guaranteed that people will be stepping up their weight loss efforts. Now, there are and always have been a million and one (only a slight exaggeration) diet books out there, including mine. Fast diets, long-term diets, you name it and someone has written a book about it.

In this context, a question worth examining is whether or not it’s better to go into a gradual, slow approach to weight loss, making small changes to habits or to just jump in feet first and go for rapid weight loss. Psychologically, many people are inherently drawn to faster programs because they get the weight off sooner. It’s just human nature, people always want more faster now. But is faster better or worse than a slower approach to weight loss?

It’s taken almost as a matter of faith in the fitness world that slower rates of weight loss are superior to faster rates, that diets generating faster weight loss always cause faster rates of regain and poorer long-term results. As I’ll mention below, there is certainly some data to support that.

It’s also often suggested that dieters set more moderate weight loss goals (e.g. lose ten pounds vs. 40 pounds) compared to larger ones; this is based on the idea that smaller goals are more realistic and more likely to succeed.

But just because something is a long-standing dogma doesn’t make it true. And if it were as simple as slower is always better, I wouldn’t be bothering to write this article.

Fast vs. Slow Initial Weight Loss

It might come as a shock to many readers, who have only ever seen the standard dogma, that a fair amount of data actually shows that a faster/greater initial weight loss is often associated with better long-term maintenance. Yup, that’s right, better weight maintenance. Not worse.

In a 2000 review titled “Lessons from obesity management: greater initial weigh loss improves long-term maintenance.” (1) along with a more recent review (2), it’s actually pointed out that a good deal of research has found that more rapid initial weight loss actually shows better long-term weight maintenance.

Quoting from reference 1 (pg. 17):

However, against this notion speaks numerous post hoc analyses of weight loss intervention studies showing that a greater initial weight loss, usually achieved in the first 2-4 weeks of treatment, is associated with a better long-term outcome, i.e. a sustained weight loss 1-5 years later.

As one example, Astrup (3) showed that the group of dieters who had lost the most weight at week 36 (17.7 kg vs. 9.8kg) had maintained more weight loss 2-5 years later (they were still down 7.1 kg vs. a 2.8 kg weight GAIN). Other research supports that conclusion as well; that is, in many studies, a faster rate and greater amount of weight loss is predictive of better long-term weight maintenance rather than worse.

What’s Going On?

Now, analyzing studies after the fact can be a problem, it’s easy to confuse correlation with causation. For example, it’s well established that some people lose weight more easily than others due to differences in biology, hormones such as thyroid, leptin and others, etc. Perhaps the folks who lose weight the most readily early on are the ones who are biologically more likely to keep it off in the long-term.

For this reason it’s crucial that controlled studies, where the rate of weight loss is manipulated be performed. Not a lot of work has been done in this area but what work has been done is certainly supportive of the idea.

In one study, subjects were placed on either a very low calorie diet or a conventional diet so that they would lose the same amount of weight over different times frames (8 vs. 17 weeks). Both groups lost 13.6 kg but, of course, the rate of weight loss was double in the very low energy group. Weight loss maintenance was higher by 2.4 kg at one year and 3 kg at two years although this wasn’t statistically significant (4).

Even if the long-term results weren’t any better, to quote again from the review (1): “At least this study does not support that a rapid weight loss influences long-term outcome adversely.”

Now, a problem with many dieting studies is that the often use multi-factorial approaches to weight loss and this can make it difficult to isolate out what’s doing what. For example, some studies will examine diet with behavioral therapy or exercise, or diet with or without diet drugs, or some combination of all of those. Figuring out what’s driving what can be difficult. Maybe it was the diet, maybe it was the drugs, maybe it was the behavioral intervention, maybe it was the combination of everything tested.

And this in part explains some of the research showing a worse effect from very low calorie rapid weight loss approaches; many of them contain exactly zero nutritional re-education as they are based around protein powder and pre-mixed type diets. They may generate stunningly fast weight loss but they don’t do anything to help with long-term maintenance. No change in food habits, nothing.

I will be the first to admit that just measuring out powders makes it extremely easy to
control food intake….The problem in my mind is that, while this approach to dieting generates amazing weight/fat loss in the short term, it does nothing to teach or retrain overall eating habits in the longer term.

Basically, to have any chance of succeeding in the long-term, any diet approach (whether slow or fast) must contain an element of nutritional education. Along with generating quick weight loss, the diet should work to help the person learn good long-term eating habits.

It’s also beneficial if aspects such as increased physical activity are included. As I’ve discussed in many of my books, and once again going against the dogma on the topic: at realistic levels, exercise actually has at most a small impact on total weight loss (although proper exercise spares lean mass loss and increases fat loss as a result). However, it’s absolutely critical for long-term weight maintenance. Any diet or training program that doesn’t set the person up with tools for long-term maintennace is a bad one, simple as that.

Of course, this is exactly how I set up The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook and why I did it the way that I did. The program is a rapid weight/fat loss plan but I explicitly built it around whole foods rather than supplements. That way, even while it’s generating rapid weight and fat loss, it’s also giving the dieter a better baseline diet (built around plenty of lean protein, vegetables, and essential fatty acids).

As well, exercise (primarily weight training with only small amounts of cardio required or recommended) is recommended during the diet, with an increase in aerobic type activity when the dieter either moves into maintenance or a moderate type of dieting approach; again this is consistent with the research on the topic. The book spends quite some time on moving to maintenance as well, with both a non-counting and counting approach to the mainteance period.

On that last note, many have found that The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook plan is a great way to kickstart a more moderate diet. I think much of this is psychological, it can be depressing watching the scale drop by a pound a week; a rapid initial fat loss is psychologically gratifying for many people and often sets the dieter up to move into a more moderate approach (which the book details how to set up).

Quoting from another paper on the topic (5):

[Very low calorie diet] with active follow-up treatment seems to be one of the better treatment modalities related to long-term weight-maintenance success.

In this context, follow-up treatment included behavior therapy, nutritional education and exercise. An extreme diet followed for 2-4 weeks before moving into maintenance may represent a nearly ideal compromise in this regards.

The benefits of a rapid initial weight loss are present along with the potential benefits of longer-term more moderate approaches to dieting (many of which are discussed my book A Guide to Flexible Dieting).

Is Faster Always Better?

As much as the research may support them, in the real-world rapid weight loss plans are absolutely not appropriate for everyone. The main exception are folks who have shown a pattern of on-again/off-again or binge type eating; they invariably tend to have poor success with extreme diets. While they may do stunningly on the diet but they won’t move to maintenance well (or at all) and will end up flip-flopping between two extremes.

For those individuals, a plan like The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook is probably the worst choice and I don’t recommend even attempting it; even if the diet succeeeds in the short-term, it is as likely to fail in the long-term as anything else. For those extremist individuals who have trouble moving out of a diet without losing control, the ideas in A Guide to Flexible Dieting are probably more beneficial.

But for many individuals, given the information discussed above, it’s becoming clear from the research that rapid weight loss plans, as long as they include certain factors such as nutritional re-education, exercise, etc. may be superior to more moderate approaches.

Comments

In contrast to commonly held belief that faster weight loss is associated with a worse long-term result, research actually suggests that faster initial weight loss may be superior to slower approaches. The Rapid Fat Loss Handbook approaches the topic scientifically and presents an integrated program of nutrition and training to generate the fastest possible fat loss with no loss of muscle or performance. Maintenance and exercise are all discussed in detail as well.

So ‘long term’ is roughly 1.5% to 6.5% of a person’s life? That doesn’t sound very long term to me!

So if I go on a rapid fat loss diet when I’m twenty, at the moment science tentatively suggests that I’ll be OK until I’m 25? What about my obesity levels at 26? 36? 46? 56? 66? 76?

I know it would be impractical to put together the type of study that clearly shows the effect of rapid fat loss over a lifetime … but nevertheless, don’t you think it’s time for nutrition experts to use language that better reflects reality—’long term is life, medium term is decades and short term is years’. At least in regards to the effect of diet and exercise on the human animal.

I’m not convinced ANY rapid fat-loss strategies work over the long term FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE (non-athletes). And if all the research is limited to one to five years, I don’t think we can rely on science to give us any answers just yet either.

Relying on studies that have only a one to five year window, as a basis for offering advice about eating habits that can effect a person for many decades seems premature to me.

Because 1-5 years is a time frame that is at least indicative of the realities of maintaining weight loss. That is, if most fail in 1-2 years (and this is what the statistics show) then the guys who make it to 5 (e.g. the National Weight Control Registry data set) are way ahead of the norm.

That’s why 1-5 years.

And for the record I am not equating anything with anything, I am simply reporting what the research on the topic shows. Researchers define long-term weight loss as 1-5 years. So that’s what I put in this article. Worrying about what people are doing at 70 is simply silly if you ask me.

And, of course the reality is that NO fat-loss strategy has shown superior results FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE so that statement of yours is utterly meaningless. Most people fail on any diet (rapid or slow), figuring out the strategies that are MORE LIKELY to work is a key aspect of all of this. And that’s why this data set is useful. If initial rapid weight loss increases long-term maintenance (and some data clearly indicates that it does even if you don’t like it) that’s huge.

You might also note that I specifically mentioned the need to move into a more moderate diet, after (if) someone uses an initial rapid approach. I also said that this approach is NOT for everyone. But, clearly, according to the research, just reiterating the standard dogma of slower is always better is misguided.

I just re-read my post … sorry if it reads a little harsh. It wasn’t my intention. I am deeply interested in this subject and believe it or not I really want to learn … I wasn’t trying to pick a fight … Anyway …

In my comment I was trying to suggest that the terms used by researchers are mis-leading. Obviously, there’s a big difference between keeping the weight off for one to five years as opposed to a lifelong practice of eating well and exercising regularly. Particularly if you include ‘enjoying the food you eat and the exercise you do’ as a part of the definition of eating well and exercising regularly. That was my point … I appreciate you were just quoting the literature … I’m just annoyed that experts define long term weight management as one to five years.

Not sure why you think worrying about the consequences of our actions (now) on our future health is silly? Whether it’s seventy, sixty or fifty, surely if you’re interested in long term weight management you should be concerned whether or not THE MEANS we choose to achieve a healthy weight now, won’t come back and bite us on the arse in the future …

You could probably ‘treat’ anxiety with cigarettes, and I’d guess many people would do quite well on them for one to five years … In fact, isn’t that what health experts were doing fifty years ago? No doubt, the researchers at the time thought it was silly to look at the effects of such a marvelous METHOD of easing anxiety twenty, thirty and forty years down the track.

I wonder what researchers in fifty years will be saying about the diets that are being offered at the moment? And how they’ve effected the generation that have tried to use them.

BTW I probably came across as a rabid anti-rapid-fat-loss-diet dude. I’m not. I actually don’t like any ‘diets’. The entire concept of gearing your eating and exercising habits to solely lose weight seems wrong-headed to me. But I’m no expert—as you can probably guess 😉

You suggest that my comment regarding the impotence of fat-loss strategies on average people is ‘utterly meaningless’? Well, when I stop seeing so-called health experts (not referring to you) marketing their books to average people with promises of powerful NEW SECRET fat-loss strategies then I’ll agree with you … until then, it’s not only meaningful to keep getting back to the primary issue at hand (‘How do we encourage AVERAGE people to adopt and MAINTAIN a healthy and active lifestyle’)—it’s NECESSARY!

Yes I did note that you mentioned the need to move into a more moderate diet. And I also noted your cautionary warning regarding yo-yo binge eaters. Not sure the warning would do any good though … I don’t think a warning on a cigarette packet stops addicted people from buying and smoking cigarettes … nor do I think your warning will stop yo-yo binge eaters/dieters from wanting to buy your book, unfortunately.

And finally,, I don’t believe the standard dogma about slow dieting either. So I wasn’t trying to get into an argument about whether slow dieting is better than fast dieting. As I said previously, I don’t think the whole concept of dieting is flawed.

You said …

“the reality is that NO fat-loss strategy has shown superior results FOR AVERAGE PEOPLE”

and also

“Most people fail on any diet (rapid or slow),’

And then your respond to these statements by saying …

“figuring out the strategies that are MORE LIKELY to work is a key aspect of all of this. ”

Another response to the first two statements would be to give up on ‘dieting’ all together. (by ‘dieting’ I mean ‘focusing on the manipulation of food or exercise FOR THE PURPOSE of losing excess weight and/or the maintenance of a healthy weight’).

Anyway, I’m tired and I’m sure I’ve taken up WAY too much of your time.

If I’ve offended you, it was unintentional. I lack social skills. Though I think I’m a little better than your friend Will Heffernan. As I said in my previous comment … I really enjoy your blog and the book I’ve read of yours.

cheers

Scott on
January 6th, 2009 11:01 am

Isn’t it possible that many obese dieters suffer from leptin and insulin resistance and that a initial period of hard dieting drops these far enough to allow those hormonal systems to work again when calories come back to what’s considered a normal dieting level?

I’ve often wondered if the “refeed” principle works in reverse on the obese side of the spectrum, where occasional periods of hard dieting help keep fatloss humming for the larger of us.

This idea has been thrown around and lowering leptin/insulin with dieting probably will have an effect in terms of improving sensitivity to both hormones (there has been some interesting work on caloric restriction/intermitten fasting in this regards).

This is at least part of why I recommend refeeds at a lower frequency the higher their bodyfat. Not only is metabolic slowdown much less of a concern at higher body fat levels but lowering leptin for those who are very fat is a good thing as excessively high leptin levels can cause health problems.

Now, will actually this end up improving fat loss? It’s hard to say. Hormone levels are lower but sensitivity is higher and signalling is what we’re really looking at. will the result be negative, positive or neutral? I can’t say.

If nothing else, lowering levels of those hormones to increase receptors sensitivity should make refeeds and such work better when they are done. If that makes sense.

Lyle

Jazz on
January 7th, 2009 3:52 am

Kira,

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make other than disagree with the terminology used in dieting research.

Your posts seem to suggest that you don’t think a calorie deficit is required to lose weight. That is, you said

“Another response to the first two statements would be to give up on ‘dieting’ all together”

It seems your concept of losing weight by whatever your definition of ‘dieting’ for weight loss involves something other than being in a negative calorie balance.

So tell us, how would someone who is overweight go ahead and proceed to lose that weight?

Additionally, your comments about chosing the means of how we lose weight now and it not biting us in the arse in the future suggests that you believe rapid fat loss schemes to be unhealthy (and not just short term, but that they have long lasting negative health effects).

Could an extreme rapid fat loss approach be unhealthy? If used for extended periods of time, probably. BUT such diets are only to be used for short term purposes before transitioning to a more flexible approach. In that context, can you bring to the table ANY evidence that short term modified fasting is unhealthy? On the contrary, you might find that they actually improve health parameters. I can verifiy this with my own blood work. And this is not an n=1 observation. Go look up the research on fasting, intermittent fasting, calorie restriction, psmf diets and health parameters. Using an analogy of treating anxiety with cigarettes is just flat out silly, and you seem literate enough to know this.

Personally I believe a more important aspect of weight loss, is an individual’s own “total awareness” of the balancing role which exists between food-intake (portion control) and exercise in reducing body-fat. My story might seem a little off-topic, but I’m sure some readers may find it useful.
I’m 181 cm tall and weigh around 75 – 78 kg year-round. I do a lot of exercise, some weeks running up to 40 km. On average I do at least 5-6 workouts a week. Mostly cardio, but I also try and balance all the cardio with weight strengthening sessions. I’m in pretty good shape, except for some belly fat. A friend the other day who is more cut than me, but seems to do less exercise… was really surprised I still had the belly fat even though I run up to 40 km some weeks. We started discussing what I eat, and I told him that my diet is fairly balanced, I generally eat three meals a day and from a wide range of foods. I generally keep away from junk food and don’t drink much alcohol. But I wasn’t counting calories or paying close attention to my diet except for the general things mention, i.e. keeping to three meals per day and not eating junk food. Looking back I wasn’t really paying enough attention to my portions. How did I know how much food was right? I basically ate as much food as I served up or was served to me in most cases; portion control was not something that I was trying to control.
I now see where I was going wrong. My exercise was very controlled and regimented; I was listening to my body and tailoring my efforts week by week. However, I wasn’t paying the same attention to my food-intake or more specifically – portion control.
Anyway, I’ve recently decided to see if I can lose that belly fat, so I’ve reduced my food portions by about half (I know rapid weight loss). I’m eating about 850 cal per day, foods with virtually no fat content (18% in diet). For my regular exercise, I’m not running, just walking the distance of 10 km per day. No other sessions. So in fact I’m doing less rigorous exercise than I would normally do.
I’m on day three and I can feel my body starting to trim gradually. I’ve probably already lost at least 1 kg. My goal is probably about 72 kg (to lose all the belly fat). If I can maintain this reduction in food intake for at least another five days, I hope to get all that belly fat off. If it works, it tells me the most effective way for me to lose the belly fat was thru portion control rather than exercise at this stage of my weight loss.
It does make sense, because if you think about this mathematically. Food intake controls the gain in your weight, whilst exercise is controlling the losses. If someone is over-eating, no amount of regular exercise will counter the gains. Looking back, the weeks I was running 40 km’s and still not losing weight was an indicator I was probably overeating than under-eating. Therefore, food intake (portion control) has always been my problem in getting the balance right.
What I’ve learnt from myself… is food “portion control” was the hardest thing for me to maintain. I do plenty of exercise, and also have the discipline to cut the junk food, however I wasn’t paying enough attention to the amount of food I ate. To conquer this I needed more aware of the problem.
To help me, I’m using a little application on my IPHONE called ISHAPE. It helps me count my food-intake and exercise levels daily. I can then see if I’m meeting my daily targets to reach my goals. Of course I didn’t need to do this; most people know when they are eating less, just because they feel hungrier. It just makes it a little easier. Anyway, I hope my story may help others to be more aware of portion control.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make other than disagree with the terminology used in dieting research.

That is certainly one point I was trying to make … I think it would be better to equate long term healthy weight management with a substantially longer period of time …This is important because I believe many people can maintain ‘healthy’ weight levels for quite long periods of time (eg the time period mentioned—1-5 years) but be using VERY unhealthy motivational structures to do so. For example, the retired athlete who used to follow strict dietary guidelines when he competed, but has ‘let himself go’, because the primary motivation he had for ‘eating healthy’ was ‘I’ll do anything it takes to win’ rather than ‘i really enjoy the food I eat.’

One of the reasons I’m concerned about this issue is because I’ve seen a lot of people I’ve trained with over the years succumb to this very scenario. Purely anecdotal I know, but it doesn’t make it any less real to my friends. Note. I accept my own experience might be biased because I’ve only trained with various sorts of fighters—boxers, nak muays, mma and martial artists. These guys are always concerned about making weight and a lot of them DID USE various ‘rapid fat loss’ approaches to losing weight. And now that they no longer need to make weight … well, they don’t!

Jazz said …

Your posts seem to suggest that you don’t think a calorie deficit is required to lose weight. That is, you said

I think there needs to be a move away form ‘goal-focused diet plans’ to ‘process-focused lifestyle development’. In other words, I’m suggesting weight loss makes a lousy goal, but a great side-effect. Exploring and finding meals and activities you actually enjoy is a totally different process than torturing yourself with food and exercise you don’t like in order to achieve a weight goal.

Jazz said …

So tell us, how would someone who is overweight go ahead and proceed to lose that weight?

Firstly, don’t hide behind the term ‘us’ when using sarcasm—it make you look insecure.

Secondly, I’m happy to ignore the sarcasm and answer the gist of your question. I think process is more important than limited goals (eg weight-loss, muscle-gain). So getting people to enjoy the process of ‘health and fitness’ and letting the results take care of themselves is the solution I’m suggesting.

In simple terms … if you get a person to fall in love with exercise and good foods—weight loss (and all the other health ‘goodies’ experts talk about) will follow. But ‘the reward’ is in the process itself— the (health) consequences are just a bonus.

And this isn’t ‘just semantics’ … It’s the difference between a dutiful marriage and a loving relationship … There’s a big difference between a couple who ‘stay together ‘for the kids’, or ‘for the security’ etc. as opposed to the couple who stay together because they genuinely love one another and want to be together.

Truly ‘healthy and active’ people LOVE the process of exercising (in what ever form that suits them personally) and LOVE the foods they eat.

I don’t pretend to know any systematic way of ‘imparting’ this ‘love’ to the general population … I have however found a few strategies that have worked in my limited circle of friends … 1. Live it (I’m one of those people who love exercise and good food). 2. Invite other’s to train and eat with me 3. Be honest and open about my health and fitness lifestyle.

I don’t know if that adequately answers your question. But it’s what I do.

Jazz said …
Additionally, your comments about chosing the means of how we lose weight now and it not biting us in the arse in the future suggests that you believe rapid fat loss schemes to be unhealthy (and not just short term, but that they have long lasting negative health effects).

As I said before, that’s a belief I’ve formed after seeing many friends who had ‘short term’ success with their weight who eventually fell into longer term problems. (This is particularly true with fighters I’ve known … I’m 38 and most of older friends who were fighters or did fight-training have been out of the game for almost a decade … some longer). And as I said before, I know this is just anecdotal, but it’s still a very real concern I have. This isn’t an intellectual wankfest for me. It cuts me up to see dudes I used to train with, who could do ten hard rounds on the pads five years ago, not be able to walk around the block today without puffing!

Jazz said …

Could an extreme rapid fat loss approach be unhealthy? If used for extended periods of time, probably. BUT such diets are only to be used for short term purposes before transitioning to a more flexible approach.

I know how they’re SUPPOSED to be used. If ONLY the people Lyle said did his diet (not those prone to binging), and they ONLY used it short term and then went on to a less restrictive diet, it might work …

But my own experience suggests that the very people Lyle warns against using rapid fat loss diets are the very people MOST likely to use them!

Jazz said …

In that context, can you bring to the table ANY evidence that short term modified fasting is unhealthy?

Nice of you to set up your argument by nullifying all those people who could misuse the diet in the first place … But that being said—I cannot bring any research data to the table that suggests rapid fat loss diets are unhealthy.

But I can bring a few old friends to MY table whose present physical and mental condition suggest that there are very real dangers in using rapid fat loss diets. But that’s not data, is it? That’s not a double-blind study, is it? That’s just real people, who followed REAL fat-loss diets, and who’ve suffered REAL negative consequences.

Phew! Well at least I’m glad there’s no actual research backing up my fears. That’s a load of my mind.

Jazz said …
On the contrary, you might find that they actually improve health parameters. I can verifiy this with my own blood work. And this is not an n=1 observation. Go look up the research on fasting, intermittent fasting, calorie restriction, psmf diets and health parameters.

I’m pleased that it’s worked for you (no sarcasm intended). And rapid fat loss diets may very well improve health parameters. But once again, that’s not my point. I’m interested in the long term results … And by long term I simply mean … will these types of diets come and bite me on the arse in the future. And I just don’t think 5 years is a long enough time span to determine this. And until we know the long term consequences don’t you think it’s wise to err on the side of caution?

Jazz said …
Using an analogy of treating anxiety with cigarettes is just flat out silly, and you seem literate enough to know this.

Yeh, I couldn’t remember whether doctor’s prescribed cigarettes or just did adverts for them … in either case, the analogy could also be applied to heroine for toothache or number of other expert recommendations for health … I was simply suggesting that short term prescriptions to improve health can actually have long term consequences.

And btw, I’m sorry if I ‘seemed literate’ to you. I’ll try harder to reflect my actual illiteracy next time I comment.

In conclusion Jazz, I hope I clarified my position … sorry if my writing appears a little rushed … I’ve actually gotta head out and do some training.

cheers!

Tim on
January 14th, 2009 5:36 pm

Kira, I really like this point that you made:
“I think there needs to be a move away form ‘goal-focused diet plans’ to ‘process-focused lifestyle development’. In other words, I’m suggesting weight loss makes a lousy goal, but a great side-effect. Exploring and finding meals and activities you actually enjoy is a totally different process than torturing yourself with food and exercise you don’t like in order to achieve a weight goal.”

There are tons of examples, Slim-Fast being the one that jumps to the front of my mind. People often do great losing weight on Slim-Fast, then once they reach their ‘goals’ they go off Slim-Fast and right back to their old eating habits…yo-yo effect ensues.

I think Lyle was making the same point when he said:
“Basically, to have any chance of succeeding in the long-term, any diet approach (whether slow or fast) must contain an element of nutritional education. Along with generating quick weight loss, the diet should work to help the person learn good long-term eating habits.”

You bring up fighters that go on crash diets to “make weight” (bad motivation), then “let themselves go” after they stop fighting. How is the crash diet to blame? Sounds like simply laziness and an apathetic attitude toward health in general. I just don’t see how you can say that the quick weight loss diet was to blame for them “letting themselves go” many years later.

Yes, exactly the same point. A diet has to engender long-term changes in overall behaviors including dietary changes and activity. Which was the point of this entire article. In some situations, rapid weight loss, as long as it is followed by nutritional re-education, etc. gives better long-term success than what Kira is proposing (which also fails more often than not).

As well, many athletes ‘let it go’ when they stop competing and it has squat to do with crash dieting. Athletes get used to eating big when they are training 20 hours/week, they can and have to eat anything and everything to support their training.

When they stop competing, many stop training altogether (they have no drive to keep working out without that specific competition goal).

“many athletes ‘let it go’ when they stop competing and it has squat to do with crash dieting.”

Firstly, of course they get fat because they don’t stop eating like they used to … that’s pretty obvious … my point is, WHY do they find it so hard to adopt a healthier approach to eating. Sure there’s the motivation factor (which I agree is very important) but surely the habituated use of a ‘no-longer-successful’ strategy is also contributing to the problem. That is to say … if an athlete could eat a shit-tonne of food in the past and still make weight for specific events by using rapid fat loss diets … surely he’d find it much harder to adopt and maintain a DIFFERENT, ‘less sexier’ / ‘less hard-core’ approach to maintaining weight (even more so if he’s had a lengthy career).

I suspect there’s a similar mentality amongst all people who misuse rapid fat loss diets … “Why would I just settle for adopting a healthy diet, and allow my body to slowly adapt over the long term, when I could lose 30 pounds in 30 days … It’s worked before”

When I’ve questioned people (athletes and non-athletes) who’ve ended up in this predicament, they all point to the motivation and methodology of their previous weight management strategies as key reasons why they struggle with their present weight problems. I’m surprised you haven’t heard similar types of responses yourself.

Now you could argue that it’s all a mental problem … the problem isn’t with the rapid fat loss diets, it’s with how people use them … but that perspective fails to take into account the frailty of the human will, particularly when it’s enmeshed within habituated actions that are no longer beneficial. The unfortunate consequence of any habituated action is that it hampers a person’s ability to choose.

Could the people we’re talking about just ‘harden the f*ck up’ and choose to get in shape? Sure. Is it harder for them to do so because of the need to adopt a totally different approach to do it? Yes. And from what I’ve seen—much harder. Would it have been easier if they hadn’t relied on a rapid fat loss ‘solution’ to begin with? I think so.

I think it’s a mistake to put the blame on a person’s physiology and motivation whilst ignoring their methodology when looking at weight management issues. That’s why I think the means chosen in the past to maintain weight is an important factor that effects a persons present (and future) success/failure in maintaining weight.

I don’t have any research to back this up, it’s merely an opinion I’ve formed after listening to people who’ve found themselves battling with this problem.

I’m starting to feel like a problem-maker / shit-stirrer on this blog and that wasn’t my intention at all. I might back off on the comments for a while and let other people get their fair share of your attention.

Cheers.

Jennifer on
January 15th, 2009 7:18 pm

I tried the MediFast (5 and 1) plan twice. I lost weight fast, but also lost muscle mass and gained the weight back plus more after I stopped. It is expensive, and uses mostly soy protein which is proving to be very bad for women and a poor choice for most. They use many artificial flavours etc. and I found myself starving and obsessing about food all the time. A portion is tiny, not filling at all….too tempting to overeat during the one meal.

Lots of new research about soy and hormones (not good), breast cancer, weight gain….

I also found the food time consuming to prepare. The drinks really need a blender, ice…also not enough fiber on the diet…constipation was a real problem. Look into iodide, new research suggests most women are suffering symptoms from lack of needed iodine in diet.

I felt a difference right away when I started taking Idoral.

Medifast used dairy too, lots of people have trouble with that- gas and bloating don’t fare well with desire for thinner waist.

I woud like to add my voice to the debate by supporting kira’s central assertion. I also believe that the whole “fat” issue is mainly owing to people’s short-termism (and/or warped) mindset. Therefore, there’s a lot to be said for stating that “diets don’t work.” Having said that, this can only ever be just good general advice on the subject, as clearly “diets” do sometimes work. Of course, Kira and Lyle are in agreement about long term changes in behaviour being important, but I must say that in my experience too, people seem to be more successful with Kira’s approach than with any rapid weight loss programme. This though, as Kira alluded to, could just be due to the fact that there are very few people who combine rapid weight loss with long term sensible changes in behaviour. It tends to be one or the other. So, I agree with both the following: 1.) There is a connection between the mentality involved with athletes gaining lots of weight after retirement and the misuse of rapid fat loss diets. 2) Rapid fat loss diets do not inherently cause people to regain weight – and in response to Tim, I don’t think Kira once said this.
Lyle, I have not read your book on this, but what about muscle loss with rapid fat loss? I suppose you will have addressed this in great detail in the book, but as I read the above, it was the first thing that jumped out at me.

i’m wondering if you or Kira actually read my article or just saw ‘rapid fat loss’ and started spewing at me about it with your own personal biases. Because that’s most of what I’m seeing in both of your comments.

I clearly outlined when and how rapid fat loss approaches can and cannot work and both of you seem more concerned about the words than about what the science actually says.

Which is this: comparatively speaking, more rapid weight loss seems to be superior to slower approaches and/or more moderate goals, at least given that the diet is based around whole foods, includes exercise and involves long-term behavioral changes.

The bolded bit is the important bit. I made the point in the article itself but apparently you both missed it. You are both talking at me about ‘rapid weight loss fails’. Right, and most rapid weight loss approaches are fundamentally flawed in how they approach it.

They are based around liquid foods (which does nothing to reteach food habits), many ignore exercise (b/c weight drops better that way), etc. They don’t apply the important bolded bits which are the utter key to ensuring that they have long-term effects.

But a bunch of flawed approaches to rapid fat loss has nothing to do with this article or the research. Or my book.

Rapid weight loss it not appropriate for everyone, it doesn’t work for everyone. But guess what, the long-term approach fails for most people too.

As well, many get so frustrated by the slow results that they quit, which is another potential benefit of more rapid approaches.

So if rapid approaches are bad and slow approaches often fail where does that leave people? Right.

Moreso when the science says what is says: at least given specific conditions, rapid weight loss works better (or at least as well) than slower approaches.

As to muscle loss, the way MY rapid fat loss approach is set up, muscle loss does not occur. With appropriate protein intakes and weight training, it simply doesn’t occur and I’ve had a lot of people do it. If they do it as written in the book, muscle loss isn’t a problem.

Which, mind you, can not be said about most rapid weight loss approaches. But that’s a big part of why I wrote my book. Recognizing that people WILL do rapid weight loss approaches, they should at least do them properly.

And that’s honestly all I have to say about this. I thought I was very clear in the article, apparently I was incorrect because both your and Kira’s criticisms are dealt with clearly in the article.

Lyle

John on
February 22nd, 2009 6:03 pm

Speak my mind, huh? LOL . . . Well, look . . . I think that’s a fair, well-written article and it doesn’t sound like some of you read it very well before you started yapping about it.

Frankly, Kira, I mean YOU.

What the hell is this?

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// QUOTE ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I think process is more important than limited goals (eg weight-loss, muscle-gain). So getting people to enjoy the process of ‘health and fitness’ and letting the results take care of themselves is the solution I’m suggesting.

In simple terms … if you get a person to fall in love with exercise and good foods—weight loss (and all the other health ‘goodies’ experts talk about) will follow. But ‘the reward’ is in the process itself— the (health) consequences are just a bonus.

And this isn’t ‘just semantics’ … It’s the difference between a dutiful marriage and a loving relationship … There’s a big difference between a couple who ’stay together ‘for the kids’, or ‘for the security’ etc. as opposed to the couple who stay together because they genuinely love one another and want to be together.
///////////////////////////////////////////////

“Fall in love with exercise and good foods?” WTF? What did you do, fall off the Volkswagen van headed to Berkely for the “love-in?” You sound like some old hippie. Honestly, no disrespect intended . . . I don’t know you . . . but you seem to want to just pick a fight and turn mouse-turds into mountains.

My story: I’ve been gaining weight ever since I was commisioned in the Army in 1980 at a trim and muscular 190 lbs. I retired weighing 260 and two years of day-trading commodities later . . . was at 350.

Am I an on again/off-again type? Yeah, probably. I’m a Libra (that’s for you Kira!) so I flip-flop between extremes . . . but I’m going to give this a try anyway.

Why? Because I honestly think that I have a disease . . . much like some folks “catch” alcoholism. With some diseases like this, you literally have to get to the lowest point possible and lose everything before you develop sufficient “gumption” to climb out of the hole.

In my case, as an obese, once-fit person, I’ve lost me. The old me disappeared under layers of fat and 3XXX shirts. The real turning point was when I tried to find a pair of jeans and couldn’t find one . . . not just at Wal Mart, but at NO Wal Mart, Sears, etc in this town.

That’s what I think these studies and debates about weight control 5 years from now . . . or 25 years from now . . . all miss. No amount of eating knowledge or exercise knowledge will help if the gumption isn’t there. You just have to get REALLY sick and tired of being sick and tired.

And as a Type A, high achiever type, I can vouch for the fact that positive feedback is essential. If I eat stuff that tastes like cardboard for a week then I want to see the damn scale move.

So like the song says . . . ‘here I go again . . .”

chris on
February 22nd, 2009 6:40 pm

I think we’re probably all missing each other’s point! For my part, I apologise for obviously not explaining myself properly. I can assure you that I did read your article, and I believe that I fully appreciate its central point, and the important caveats you provided about long term behaviour/reeducation etc. It certainly wasn’t my intention to “start spewing at you”, or “talking at you”. Looking back, I can see I’ve perhaps strayed from the central point of discussion, but in my defence, I’m new to your site and simply intended to widen the debate a little. (I was merely making the point that, although bearing no relationship to your correct model of rapid fat loss, most people’s success seems to be realised with moderate long term changes to overall lifestlye rather than general rapid weight loss programmes.) I thought the tone of the language I used was respectful enough, and I’m genuinely sorry you seem to have taken offence.

I WAS concerned with what the science said, but thought that some anecdotal evidence would add to the discussion. I would say though that you acknowledged the use of controlled studies in this area was limited.

It was never about “bias”, as there is no bias to be had. That is to say, I read your articles with great interest, and now use them as my main source of nutritional guidance, as I respect you as a properly qualified, articulate and intelligent authority in this area. For this reason, and the fact that your logic and reasoning are very convincing, I tend to “agree” with all your articles. After rereading my original post, there is nothing there to say I disagree with you. It is possible to support some of what Kira was saying, and at the same time agree with the central point of your article. To be honest, the word “agree” here is possibly the wrong word, as I suppose I’m not in a position to agree or disagree, since I hold no formal qualifications in this area. As a result, I read your article with a completely open mind.

Admittedly, it seemed quite radical because (and of course you mentioned all the dogma) everything I have ever read and heard (including from yourself in Hardgainer magazine a few years back) was that a slow approach to fat loss was the only effective means. Despite this (because again, I’m not in a position to question what you say), the only reason I felt the need to make my post was due to the fact that I felt Kira was unfairly being given a hard time for some of the things he was saying (not necessarily by you), even if they were guilty of getting off the point somewhat. But I reiterate: I didn’t think a little innocent broadening of the debate would do any harm.

Anyway, after all that, I fully intend to order your book on the subject! In the meantime, and because I’ve just started leaning out again after a few months of gaining, may I ask, shall I just get on and cut my calories to say 1000 below maintenance, rather than my usual 500? Although my weight training and protein intake are taken care of, I’m assuming it’s a bit more short term and complex than that. I would really appreciate any “interim advice” while I await delivery of the order!
Regards.

I tire of going around in circles with this. You’d note that I introduced this article with the following quote before looking at the direct research on the topic. You both seem intent on ignoring that research to keep repeating the same tired dogma.

The research says what it says, that it contradicts your long-held beliefs or whatever is not my problem. You can keep blathering about this in the comments section, but it will be with yourselves.

Lyle

***
“It’s taken almost as a matter of faith in the fitness world that slower rates of weight loss are superior to faster rates, that diets generating faster weight loss always cause faster rates of regain and poorer long-term results. As I’ll mention below, there is certainly some data to support that.

It’s also often suggested that dieters set more moderate weight loss goals (e.g. lose ten pounds vs. 40 pounds) compared to larger ones; this is based on the idea that smaller goals are more realistic and more likely to succeed.

But just because something is a long-standing dogma doesn’t make it true. And if it were as simple as slower is always better, I wouldn’t be bothering to write this article.”

I’ll also note that most of your comments seem to be focusing on what you perceive rapid fat loss programs to be, rather than what I’m actually talking about.

As I responded initiially to Chris, I agree totally that 99% of rapid fat loss approaches are moronically set up. They are based around liquid shakes, no exercise and make no attempts at maintenance. That is a recipe for failure. No disagreement there.

I also addressed that in detail in the article but apparently both of you guys are still missing the little black bits on the white screen (e.g. the words) and what they are actually saying.

I’ll also note (this goes to John’s comment about ‘focusing on the process’) that the way that MY approach to rapid fat loss is set up (and it’s clear that neither of you have read my book) it sets the person on the path to the long-term process.

Because nothing else works. Again, I don’t think that there is any disagreement here even if you guys continue to make there be one.

I based my diet around whole foods, a base of lean protein, veggies and essential fats. This should form the core of ANY good diet as I think you’ll both agree. Not shakes, not liquid supplements, not anything but the essential nutrients which everyone should eat on every diet every day.

When the rapid fat loss phase is over, other foods are simply added to this core diet to bring calories up. There are no wholesale changes in the dietary pattern from the rapid fat loss portion and the moderate deficit portion (a topic I dedicated 5 chapters of my book to discussing).

Thus the initial phase performs the role of eating re-education, it gets people eating the essential nutrients (instead of the crappy American diet). After that phase is over, other foods can be added back to that essential core. Any disagreement with this? I doubt it.

I also include exercise. Weight training is mandatory and small amounts of aerobic activity can be done (excessive activity actually causing worse results for reasons I discuss in the book). But it is not necessary.

However, as discussed in the chapters on maintenance, I strongly advocate increasing the amount of activity when the dieter moves back to maintenance (since this has been shown in endless research to help with long-term maintenance).

Are you getting the point yet? You’re arguing against the 99% of rapid fat loss programs that ARE bullshit; and we’re not in disagreement that they suck.

But that’s not what I’m talking about nor is it what the article is talking about. Rather, I’m talking about a distinctly different approach to rapid fat loss focusing on whole foods, eating re-education, exercise and long-term behavioral changes.

Because while the first approach is destined to fail, the fact is that the research suggests that the second is superior to more moderate approaches. Or at least no worse. But since that research driven fact contradicts your long-held beliefs, you both just keep repeating the same dogmatic crap.

Except that the research says that you’re wrong.

Apparently you can’t grasp the distinction between the two, between
1. Most rapid fat loss approaches: which suck
2. What I’m actually talking about

And I can’t explain it any more simply to either of you. I made it clear in the article, I repeated myself in the comments section and now I’ve typed it a third time.

And now I’m truly done. I’ll approve further comments from either of you but I will not be responding. I’ve said what I have to say at least three times now and either you get it or you don’t.

chris on
February 23rd, 2009 6:36 pm

Lyle
I’ll make this as short as possible because I too am now tired of all this bullshit. You accuse me of not reading the little black bits on the page, but from your response, it is absolutely clear to me that the main person guilty of this is YOU. (My opinion here may also be supported by the generally poor standard of proofreading throughout your articles.) So one more time, THERE IS NOTHING IN MY POSTS TO SAY THAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU. Actually, this is so obvious that I am beginning to believe that you really haven’t read them. Otherwise, you are not as intelligent as you appear.

Anyway, forget all this fat loss shit for now,and the pissing contest you have turned it into. I want you to know that before this, I had genuine respect for you with your HARDGAINER/CYBERPUMP background, not to mention the quality of your articles on this site (grammar mistakes aside). Up until now, despite the malicious tone of the language you used in response to me, I maintained a respectful and dignified manner. This obviously makes no difference to you, as you are obviously a sensitive soul, judging by the way you appear to view any comments made as a personal attack on your delicate ego. As this is the case, frankly, I think you need to get a life, and not get yourself so worked up about what ultimately are fairly inconsequential issues in the big scheme of things. My one final piece of advice to you is that if you can’t provide people with a basic level of respect and good manners for expressing polite points of view, EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT, then simply don’t bother having a discussion forum! Remember, you can have all the knowledge in the world about nutrition, but if you are an arsehole, it matters little.

I have insulin resistance and have tried a variety of diets. I’ve done low cal (900-1100) paired with exercise with no weight loss over a month. I felt sick and had some severe exhaustion. I’ve also added weight resistance training to try and increase my muscle mass (and caloric needs) to create a larger caloric deficit.

I’m quite overweight (80lbs on the low end of the “scale”) and wonder if this type of lifestyle change would be good. I’m female and am about 5’4.

Currently I eat a high protein, moderate fat, lower calorie diet. I run at least twice a week (3.1 mi), I am trying to learn to run. But this has really been exhausting me as well. I’m on a whack of supplements to try and increase energy (Greens plus energy, vitamin B12, complex b, multivitamin, cal/mag, fish oil, flax seed oil and Inositol).

What you are suggesting goes against everything that I’ve learned, would this work with someone who has whacky hormones that work against her loosing weight (I have Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome). Doctors tell me its “simple math”, but I’ve proved that not to be the case. If it IS simple math, then doing what I am doing currently should give me a 1-2 lbs a week loss.

Oh, and I also wanted to ask about lean muscle mass, I don’t want to loose the muscle I have made, so doesn’t the body metabolize the muscle stores before fat stores? Will I be exhausted on those few calories? Is this not harmful to the body?

PCOS does some strange things to the system and, generally speaking, lowered carbohydrate diets do seem to be preferred (primarily to deal with the insulin resistance that occurred). The first bodybuilder I prepped suffered from PCOS and she actually responded well to a cyclical ketogenic diet (5-6 days of very low carbs followed by a 1 day high carb day).

One thing I would note (and I will eventually write a full article on this) is that, for many people, the combination of very low calories and a lot of activity works poorly. In the Rapid Fat Loss handbook I strongly recommend against that (The only required activity is 2 short weight workouts per week). There are a number of reasons but the body simply acts strangely when subjected to the combination of a large caloric deficit and a lot of activity.

As to your second post, I set up the Rapid Fat Loss handbook approach to be the safest way of approaching the issue. It’s set up around the essential nutrients, coming from whole food, it avoids muscle mass loss through a combination of adequate protein and the right kind of exercise (resistance training) so that the weight lost is fat. People who have used it have reported exactly that: fat is lost, lean body mass is not.

Energy levels vary greatly on the diet. Some feel terrible, some are energized. A huge aspect of avoiding fatigue on lowcarb diets is adequate minerals (sodium, potassium, calcium).

Good luck
Lyle

Lauren on
June 9th, 2009 9:58 am

Lyle,
I’m very interested in the Rapid Fat Loss handbook you’ve written. I constantly have to be in phenominal shape for what I do (NFL Cheerleader) I have a calendar shoot coming up along with pictures and having to meet my goal weight and maintain it. I’m about 10-15 lbs from this goal and am hoping this handbook would help me get there quickly. However, we have practice 2-3 times/week and they last about 2-3 hours and can be VERY intense. Can you help me with fueling to get through these intense practice sessions while following this handbook? (have not purchased this book but really want to)
Thanks!

It might be possible to modify the diet (primarily wtih carbs around/during training to support the training while still maintaining the diet). I offered this possibility (wrt: weight workouts) in the book itself although you’d need to increase the amount of carbs consumed for a 3 hour intense workout.

Lyle

LA on
June 19th, 2009 12:22 pm

Is alcohol a big no no during a refeed period or could it somehow be incorporated?

Both can be appropriate for any given body fat percentage and rapid fat loss is scaled (in terms of nutrient intake) based on that. It’s not that one is necessarily better, they are different. Rapid Fat Loss is a far more extreme diet approach; it’s harder (For some) but works faster. Ketogenic diet describes more moderate dieting. Other articles on the site (for example: Setting the Deficit – Small, Moderate and Large) address pros and cons of each approach.

Lyle

Deeby on
January 16th, 2010 11:18 am

Lyle,

I’m a 39 y/o guy. For most of my life I’ve done the long slow distance training (triathlon, marathon, etc). I’ve never had a problem with fat levels. For the past 1.5 years I’ve been doing strength training (not bb’ing, but heavy for low reps). I’m loving it, but I want to shed some fat once I achieve a few strength goals later this year. After I shed the fat, I’ll go right back to hitting the iron (and the calories) hard.

Is it a realistic goal to do a rapid fat loss diet and maintain strength?

Deeby: I specifically set up the RFL approach to maintain both LBM and strength while losing fat. Much of this has to do with appropriately adjusting the weight training program (the diet setup is key as well, of coures) and there are guidelines in the book for how to adjust training (essentially moving it to low volume maintenance work for the length of the diet). The majority of people who have done the program (as written) have lost little to no strength or muscle mass. Good luck.

TCO on
January 18th, 2010 8:53 pm

Big salads rock!

Meredith on
February 17th, 2010 4:39 pm

Hi Lyle,

I’ve spent some time researching the Ketogenic Diet, and started just over 4 weeks ago. It’s done well so far, but as you said, it’s a moderate approach as compared to the RFL. I’ve lost 101 lbs on a normal 40|40|20 diet and wanted to continue the fat loss but keep my base LBM . . hence starting Keto. I still have a high body fat %, and probably still have around 60 lbs to lose. I’m VERY active, working with a trainer, participating in bootcamps, spinning, etc. I’m also training for a 10 mile race in April. What do you think the best approach would be for me? Should I stick to my CKD? Go TKD? Or cut back on activity for a bit and do the RFL? I really want to drop this weight for GOOD . . . whatever course that might take me down.

The major drawn back to RFL for some people is that it does not allow large amounts of activity to be done. If you’re training for a race in April, I think it would be absolutely the wrong approach since you’d have to cut back training so much that you’re training would be massively impacted (in a bad way). Whether sticking with straight keto or TKD depends, check the Comparing the Diets series to make a decision. Good luck.

Will on
April 7th, 2010 8:30 pm

Lyle,

How much of a disadvantage am I at if I follow the 1st edition of RFLH rather than the 2nd edition? I believe that I read somewhere that the 2nd edition modifies protein intake calculations or something like that? I just don’t want to be less successful because I’m missing out on 35 pages of additional info…

Thanks,

Will

olivia on
April 5th, 2011 9:50 am

Lyle,

I’m very intrigued and would love to read your book but it is out of print? I can’t find it anywhere. Is is still available in some way,shape or form?

Olivia, you can order all of my books directly from the site. Click store at the top or on any of the book graphics in the rightmost side rail.

olivia on
April 6th, 2011 5:05 pm

Thanks, I figured it out. For some reason I was getting an error message whenever I tried from home but when I tried from my computer at work I was able to download the book. I am enjoying it so far and am almost finished. I appreciate your “bluntness” in your writing style.

Olivia

Justin on
October 15th, 2011 11:39 pm

quick q i haven’t seen addressed anywhere. i’m a former meathead currently just doing bodyweight training (pullups, pullups, pistols, etc) but would like to get super lean (as opposed to the 10-12%bf i’m at now). do you think rapid fat loss could work for me if i don’t want to lift weights?

thanks.

Fiona on
February 7th, 2012 6:56 am

Lyle, please explain why there’s no room in the RFL plan for egg yolks. I am one of those fish-eating, egg-eating, diary consuming type “vegetarians” (that is to say, I eat anything except red meat and white meat). When eating eggs, I only ever eat free-range (and preferably organic) ones, and I care about the environment and food security. I also happen to think the yolk part of a fresh egg is what makes it delicious. So all in all the idea of wasting the yolks does trouble me! What’s the deal? Would eating whole eggs too badly compromise the RFL diet?

LC on
September 22nd, 2014 10:20 am

Hey Fiona,

Not sure if you’ll see this, but I like free range eggs and hate wasting eggyolks too.

On the RFL, I ended up freezing the yolks and using them later for icecream, carbonara sauce, or other recipes. They keep well, and bringing your friends homemade icecream will make you a popular guest.

Where I live, you can buy bags of frozen fish fillets of non-overfished species. I ate a fair few of those.